JacksonGariety

Aren't a lot of people profiting off of coronavirus? Zoom, Nintendo, Netflix, etc.? And what about viral apocalypse movies like 'Contagion'?

This stuff helps people cope with stress.

It's kinda interesting that color, sound, and space all have three dimensions. What are some other fundamental three-dimensional things?

Why not just serve up a disclaimer video exposing the flaws in 'Plandemic', and require users to watch that video first? That way, the people who watch this sort of stuff will be able to learn to think for themselves by resolving the cognitive dissonance.

Absolutely this. The news + internet is driving a new form of polarization that's distinctly different from its historical antecedents.

Love this comment!

Rather anti-climactic

> look, you're not just empty space > just kidding! yeah you are

This calamity is ripping apart the social fabric of the entire world. The the enormity of cascading consequences is beyond imagination.

Perhaps the greatest document addressing this question is Plato's "Sophist." Therein, Plato demonstrates that the ability to reason well amounts to knowing which of the most general classes of things go together. He compares this ability to musical ability, or knowing which notes harmonize with each other. The imposter can only repeat specific combinations, lacking as he does knowledge of the underlying structure.

> Then he who is able to do this has a clear perception of one form or idea extending entirely through many individuals each of which lies apart, and of many forms differing from one another but included in one greater form, and again of one form evolved by the union of many wholes, and of many forms entirely apart and separate. This is the knowledge and ability to distinguish by classes how individual things can or cannot be associated with one another. [Sophist, 253d]

This is 50% fake news.

No matter how seriously you value your life, no matter how seriously you take the quarantine, you simply cannot overlook the fact that all of this looks exactly like every other recent TV sensation: it comes out of nowhere; the media capitalizes on it; and now we're slowly getting bored, waiting for something substantial to happen in our lives.

I will

> They're positioned as a percentage of the parent element.

Why annotate percentages instead of elements? When you go to add an annotation, it should highlight the element like chrome dev tools ("select an element in the page to inspect it"), and then add the annotation to the ::before selector of the selected element. Then you'd have real DOM annotation software.

EDIT: and you don't have to get rid of the code you have. you should still position the tater wherever the mouse is clicked, but insert the tater at the deepest DOM level so that it moves where the elements move.

EDIT 2: you won't be able to use position: absolute; to position the elements. You'll have to calculate the position by subtracting the element offset from the position of the mouse at the time of click. It will be sort of tricky to position the annotations properly, but it's definitely doable.

EDIT 3: you probably want a relatively positioned container around each annotation, and then use position: absolute; inside of that. The position of the annotation will be "absolutely" positioned relative to the container, and then you can just use arithmetic to set the `left` and `top` styles.

EDIT 4: the annotations will interfere with CSS's "nth-child" and similar selectors. I think there's a way you can leverage the shadow dom to keep the annotations separate from the user's markup: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/...

EDIT 5: rendering annotations this way opens the door for all sorts of quick-win features, like highlighting or listing all the elements that have been annotated and saving/sharing this as a file.

EDIT 6: this should really just be a script you include in <head />, for the testing environment only. it's poor design to mix view logic with testing/feedback.

or just turn you keyboard off?

The nuclear reactor is a very good example of the bizarre contrast between human achievements and the natural world from which we evolved. Thank you :)

I see your point about the inevitability of humanity's technical achievements. But I can draw attention to my point further by suggesting the following hypothesis: it seems intuitive that something very complex cannot be derived from something very simple. Nonetheless, the smooth, dense simplicity of the big bang has, through a process that is empirically observable, unfolded into this incredibly complex microcosm on Earth. That there is a scientific explanation is not really debatable: we know that the complexity of the tree is stored in the seed as genes. The simplicity is only apparent. So, if we wish to explain the development of the universe as we have explained the development of trees, animals, etc. then we will have to be able to identify some kind of code that contains the potential for infinity complexity; a code that was housed in the smooth, dense big bang and thereafter dictated the procedural unfolding of reality from gas to stars and eventually nuclear reactors. All of this is to say that our intuitive idea that complexity cannot be derived from simplicity is actually, in a weird way, contradicted by biology, and that this "weirdness" applies not just to biological phenomena but physical ones as well so that new things seem to arise out of nowhere, when in fact they were stored in an imperceptible, condensed form that unfolded itself out of itself.

When I first read the title, I understood it more philosophically. As in––why is most of outer space just endless, indistinguishable dust, while here on Earth there's just so much _stuff_! There's nothing simple about reality at all. It's boundlessly complex and intricate for apparently no reason at all. It seems intuitively simpler that less "stuff" should exist. Another way of putting it: even if a supreme being did create the universe, why would it go to so much trouble to make sure that dust gradually accumulates on the top of my refrigerator?

EDIT: Going a step further, what's really weird is just how different human beings are from everything else. Compare a McDonald's bathroom stall to the surface of the moon. How can these things coexist? They don't go together. It's like a giant accident. Like someone spilled pink nail polish on the Mona Lisa.

True. But DNA is also to some degree shaped by the choices we make in life, no?

Hopefully we are able to use our willpower to bring about personality change over the course of our life.

Totally agree. This is the "fuzzy overlap" to which I referred in my OP. I use the word 'fuzzy' because we just don't know how nature and nurture affect each other.

Yeah I've never understood how people take such one-sided positions on this issue. And it becomes such an emotionally-charged subject for both sides.

You seem to be thinking of the labels 'male' and 'female'; but I was referring to 'sex' as biologically reproduced characteristics, and 'gender' as sociologically reproduced characteristics. The labels are statistically consistent, but the concepts are quite different. Sex is stored in our genes whereas gender is stored in cultural artifacts.

There are differences between the sexes, but they are not the ones described here. These are gender differences. There's probably some fuzzy overlap, but the article doesn't cover it.

> speed, memory and safety

It seems you're thinking of interaction in the context of, e.g., a work environment where efficiency is of capital importance. This is one kind of interaction, yes. But there are others.

That's a good quote; but I think that the crucial sentence is this one:

> The driver must have been written by the sales department.

> There are endless possibilities for people who want to get out and actually do something.

If you're wealthy...

It is true that we cannot know if the product causes NEC without statistics.

But the point is that _even if no one had died_, SimplyThick had not been developed and manufactured with health and safety in mind.

The incident illustrates the dangers of reckless innovation and experimentation.

Well, apparently if you outsource your production to Thermo Pac... yes.

Excuse the cliche question, but who is Razengan?

If we make an HN account whose thoughts and communication are practically indistinguishable from Razengan's, and it makes similar comments in all the same threads, is this account actually Razengan's?

The answer to "Who is Razengan?" is probably this: Whoever other HN users think Razengan is.

The concept of life is not unique in this regard. One can form a similar argument for any concept whatsoever.

It's more useful to situate concepts such as 'life' at the center of constellations of other concepts such as 'self-determination', 'will', 'evolution', and so on.

> Of course, I have no real evidence for my views...

> On the other hand, the people who talk about the great difficulty of factoring have equally little evidence...

This is a classic antinomy (paradox): one can argue indefinitely in either direction, because the question lies along the bounds of human reason (or so says Immanuel Kant).

The two sentences above, in themselves, provide a bit of evidence of the impossibility of solving the problem, and at the same time provide evidence for the possibility of handling this problem as a significant phenomenon of pure mathematics.

:)

EDIT: I mean only that the insolubility of the problem may itself be of mathematical use: it may (insofar as it is unsolvable, and insofar as it appears to be soluble) amount to a kind of 'anchor' for mathematics, a marker that indicates the boundary of the mathematical sciences, and that such a boundary would be of tremendous import to mathematicians and philosophers. Why is _this_ problem, _this_ problem specifically, unsolvable? (Rather than some other problem that has been solved?)

tl;dr The question of "why have we have trying to solve this problem for millennia?" is perhaps more significant for mathematics than the solution to the problem.

Regarding the general phenomenon of removing 'hateful content' from social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter as well) there seem to be primarily two reactions:

1) Good. Hateful content spreads hate and causes it to multiply. We should not allow it to proliferate on the internet.

2) This is censorship. It it is the fault of the individuals watching/reading the hateful media who are to blame for number of views the videos/articles get.

So I wonder: is it really an either/or decision? Is there no third option here? It seems like a classic ethical antinomy. Authority influences people but, at the same time, the authority always needs to be recognized as authoritative by the people who are influenced by it.